More than pesticides threaten our food supply. Tons of imported fish laced with chemicals banned from the U.S. food supply, including carcinogens, are routinely showing up in this country and, state officials say, winding up on American dinner plates.
Within the last two months, three American fish importers pleaded guilty in Mobile, Ala., to federal felony charges of mislabeling fish and seafood. Their illegal haul included more than 120,000 pounds of imported fish, brought in to Mobile, AL and Seattle, WA, that tested positive for the suspected human carcinogen malachite green and for another antibiotic that U.S. authorities also prohibit for use on fish that people consume.
The evidence of tainted imported fish reaching U.S. shores and seeping into the marketplace fleshes out a critical Government Accountability Office audit released in April. The year-long investigation found that the Food and Drug Administration’s inspection system is so haphazard in inspecting imported fish and seafood— screening less than 1 percent of what comes in — that fish tainted with potentially harmful drugs “may be entering U.S. commerce.” The report noted that more than 80 percent of the fish Americans eat is imported from other countries.
According to the audit, "The scope of FDA's sampling program, which supplements its oversight program, is limited," continues the report. "[T]he sampling program does not generally test for drugs that some countries and the EU have approved for use in aquaculture. Consequently, seafood containing residues of drugs not approved for use in the United States may be entering U.S. commerce. Further, FDA's sampling program is ineffectively implemented. For example, for fiscal years 2006 through 2009, FDA missed its assignment plan goal for collecting import samples by about 30 percent. In addition, in fiscal year 2009, FDA tested about 0.1 percent of all imported seafood products for drug residues."
Watch footage taken by a U.S. advocacy group of seafood being raised in Vietnam in dirty sewage water, pumped with toxic antibiotics and banned drugs just to keep them alive.
Only a handful of states inspect imported fish – mainly ones trying to protect local fishing industries from what they regard as unfair foreign competition. The others rely on the FDA to protect consumers, despite the documented flaws in the FDA’s inspections. According to the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future at the Bloomberg School of Public Health, the FDA tests for 13 types of drug residues, in contrast to inspection agencies in Europe and Japan that test for 34 and 27 drugs, respectively. This discrepancy suggests that seafood producers can use many drugs for which the U.S. does not screen. Based on the authors' findings of drug residues, it can be surmised that veterinary drugs are continuing to be used in aquaculture from developing countries, which can lead to adverse health consequences, including the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria on fish farms and their spread in seafood products.
Finding Sustainable Seafood & Identifying Safe Fish to Eat
The movement towards sustainable seafood is about solutions for our oceans. Choosing sustainable seafood is a simple and effective action that you can take every time you eat at a restaurant or buy seafood. Whether you are an individual shopping for your family, a chef buying for your restaurant, or a supplier sourcing from fishing communities, your choices count. Voting with your wallet sends a strong signal to government and industry leaders, telling them that you support responsible stewardship of our natural marine resources.
Find Sustainable Seafood options with help from Seafood Watch.
Guest Blog: Alan Foljambe on behalf of the Food Down the Road, Ontario.
I – Diverging Paths
For decades, a small number of courageous and visionary environmental activists have been attempting to halt the industrial destruction of the biosphere. Devoting their time, resources, hearts and minds, and sometimes putting their bodies on the line, these activists have raised public awareness about the dire threats to wilderness, air, oceans, and forests.
Unfortunately, these campaigns, while nowhere near successful enough in saving the wild Earth, have perhaps been too successful at shaping the parameters of the debate. The public perception of a flattened forest, an ocean stripped of life, or the environmental crime scene known as the Alberta Tar Sands is that these things are problems in their own right.
I would suggest that these things are, at a deeper level, symptoms of a society that sees itself as separate from the natural world. In the words of the Dhammapada, “If one speaks or acts with a corrupt mind, suffering follows, as the wheel follows the hoof of an ox pulling a cart.” The branches of environmental destruction can be seen in forests around the world, but its roots are firmly planted within our human minds. Fighting the fruits of these poisonous roots, while necessary, is really nothing more than a holding action. As any gardener who has dealt with thistles knows, the only way to solve the problem is to uproot it.
To stop wrecking the planet, we need to purify our minds. A tall order to be sure, but we really have no choice. We need to take the middle path between two extremes: on the one hand, disembodied spiritualism that is often ego masquerading as enlightenment, and on the other hand, activism divorced from self inquiry, a state of being that can lead to mindless destruction and ego (again), this time disguising itself as radicalism.
Consider a person who is seeking spiritual purity, who pursues this path to the exclusion of all else. If this is done in an unhealthy way, meditation retreats and interior searching can eventually separate that person from the surrounding community. Ironically, the pursuit of liberation from ego can itself become an ego trip, when a person focuses on the self to the exclusion of the exterior world.
I am in no way condemning the pursuit of inner knowledge, but I do question a spiritual path that ignores the political realities that surround us. A meditation centre is a necessity in these trying times, and I would hope to see them become more common as we enter a historical era that will leave many reeling from social vertigo. However, these centres and those who take refuge in them need to consider their place in the world. While paths of escape from a deluded mentality are critically important, they should not function as distractions from harsh political and ecological truths. This means, in hands-on terms, that meditators need to concern themselves with gardening and food production, green power systems, radically innovative building techniques, and waste reduction. Perhaps more problematically, spiritual seekers need to develop a critique of societal forces that oppose these necessary changes.
At the other end of the spectrum from the spiritual seeker are activists who becomes so absorbed in the importance of a cause that they lose sight of inner reality. This can lead to mindless aggression, a descent into cynicism and the dehumanization of one’s opponents. I am not condemning strong political action, even action that some would consider “radical.” These are radical times, and there is no question that sitting in a circle and singing “We Shall Overcome” is no longer sufficient, if indeed it ever was. However, radical action bears a tremendous amount of responsibility. The very understandable anger that is felt by all people who love this planet should be used with awareness and an understanding of consequences, not squandered on acts of public vandalism.
When the latter occurs, we are confronted with depressing scenes such as that played out at the G20 demonstrations in Toronto last July. Wittingly or otherwise, certain people danced to the tune of police provocateurs and obligingly torched some police cars for the cameras. What wasn’t reported on the CBC was that, prior to being burned, one of the cruisers had been spray painted with the words “this car is bait!” by a somewhat more astute protester. The bait was taken, of course, and the cameras got what they needed to marginalize the entire event and continue on with Business as Usual.
A dose of the dedication and fire of radical action within the field of meditation might not be such a bad thing. Uprooting mental impurities is not a job for the faint of heart, nor can it be healthily separated from a commitment to the health and happiness of the planet as a whole.
II – The Middle Way
Where does this leave us, as meditators, activists, gardeners, farmers, and people in search of right livelihood and a kind relationship to the Earth?
Fortunately, those who have gone before sometimes leave pathways that can make our own journeys easier. I would like to suggest the poet and activist Gary Snyder as an an inspiration for meditators, workers, and activists, an example of balanced engagement with both political astuteness and deep self inquiry, and an alternative to paths that lead nowhere.
Snyder is a poet and essayist, lifelong conservationist, and Zen Buddhist who spent ten years living, studying and meditating in Japan. He brings to his work a joyful inquisitiveness combined with a fearless advocacy for the wild things of the Earth. He is an example of what a person can accomplish if some serious energy is put into focusing the mind. His miracle, to paraphrase an old Buddhist saying, is that he eats when he eats and walks when he walks.
Snyder’s poetry reveals a precise attention to the concrete details of the world. Rather than shunning the world in favour of a disembodied spirituality, Snyder focuses his attention to the point where the light of the spirit shines through the tangible reality of a living planet. His tacit message is that, if we want to clear our minds and act in defense of wild nature, we need to be humble enough to know our own surroundings intimately.
Sunday morning, november, plenty of birds
a pair of red-shafted flickers
on the peach tree
stretch wings
showing the white-flash back
linnets crack seeds at the feed tray.
Snyder’s intimacy with the real world comes from the fact that his writing and meditation have been interspersed with a lifetime of gardening, homesteading, traveling, hiking, and political organizing. Snyder’s poems are words with the bark still on them, and they bear a message that is critical for the planetary challenges that we face: when each of us is able to integrate deep self awareness with an active existence in the living world, both our minds and the world will be the better for it.
There are times when separation from the community is critical for inner growth, but these times are temporary. It is the moving forth, the moving outward into the world that in the end will wipe the dust from your inner eye. The idea that personal purity must rest upon an abandonment of our neighbors is corrosive to the strength of the community, however widely you may care to define that term.
If we hope to make any substantive progress against the destruction of the earth, we need to combine activism with a close attention to our own motivations, and work to uproot the ignorance, greed and egotism that exist within our minds as much as in the cracked and beautiful world that surrounds us.
Alan Foljambe 19.I.2011 Source: Print Volume 3 Food Down the Road
How a new worldview can help us feed our communities and grow a better future
Guest Blog: Aric McBay on behalf of the Food Down the Road, Ontario.
Everyday, when we read the headlines or watch the news, we can be sure about one thing: it’s mostly going to be bad. Bad news about the planet, or poverty, or the economy, or about the future in general. We don’t often see what regular people and community groups are doing to try to solve those problems.
Much of the good news in this paper ties into the idea of food sovereignty, an important new concept that has been gaining traction across Canada and around the world. Food sovereignty is more than just an idea – it’s a framework that can help us build sustainable communities that offer healthy food, meaningful jobs, and genuine democracy.
At its core, the idea of food sovereignty is simple: communities should have a say in where and how their food is grown. You might say this idea is common sense, simply because food is so central to daily human life. After all, food keeps us alive, good food nourishes our bodies and gives us pleasure, and the sharing of food is a cornerstone of both family life and cultural identity.
Food Sovereignty
The idea of food sovereignty has become popular because communities around the world have, especially in recent decades, lost so much of their say over their own food. This has put at risk not only their access to good healthy food, but their cultural continuity, and in some cases their very survival.
The term food sovereignty was coined by La Via Campesina, a global movement of peasants and small-scale food producers. (The National Farmers Union is an active and founding member of La Via Campesina.) First used in 1996, the food sovereignty framework was a response to international market forces – mostly corporations and international banks – which undermine the ability of small producers to make a living and feed their communities.
La Via Campesina defined seven underlying principles of food sovereignty, including the belief that food is a human right, that agrarian reform is needed, and that the food system must be democratically controlled.
Principles of Food Sovereignty
1. Food: A Basic Human Right
2. Agrarian Reform
3. Protecting Natural Resources
4. Reorganizing Food Trade
5. Ending the Globalization of Hunger
6. Social Peace
7. Democratic Control
Via Campesina's seven principles of food sovereignty include:
- Food: A Basic Human Right. Everyone must have access to safe, nutritious and culturally appropriate food in sufficient quantity and quality to sustain a healthy life with full human dignity. Each nation should declare that access to food is a constitutional right and guarantee the development of the primary sector to ensure the concrete realization of this fundamental right.
- Agrarian Reform. A genuine agrarian reform is necessary which gives landless and farming people – especially women – ownership and control of the land they work and returns territories to indigenous peoples. The right to land must be free of discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, race, social class or ideology; the land belongs to those who work it.
- Protecting Natural Resources. Food Sovereignty entails the sustainable care and use of natural resources, especially land, water, and seeds and livestock breeds. The people who work the land must have the right to practice sustainable management of natural resources and to conserve biodiversity free of restrictive intellectual property rights. This can only be done from a sound economic basis with security of tenure, healthy soils and reduced use of agro-chemicals.
- Reorganizing Food Trade. Food is first and foremost a source of nutrition and only secondarily an item of trade. National agricultural policies must prioritize production for domestic consumption and foodself-sufficiency. Food imports must not displace local production nor depress prices.
- Ending the Globalization of Hunger. Food Sovereignty is undermined by multilateral institutions and by speculative capital. The growing control of multinational corporations over agricultural policies has been facilitated by the economic policies of multilateral organizations such as the WTO, World Bank and the IMF. Regulation and taxation of speculative capital and a strictly enforced Code of Conduct forTNCs is therefore needed.
- Social Peace. Everyone has the right to be free from violence. Food must not be used as a weapon. Increasing levels of poverty and marginalization in the countryside, along with the growing oppression ofethnic minorities and indigenous populations, aggravate situations of injustice and hopelessness. The ongoing displacement, forced urbanization, oppression and increasing incidence of racism of smallholderfarmers cannot be tolerated.
- Democratic control. Smallholder farmers must have direct input into formulating agricultural policies at all levels. The United Nations and related organizations will have to undergo a process ofdemocratization to enable this to become a reality. Everyone has the right to honest, accurate information and open and democratic decision-making. These rights form the basis of good governance,accountability and equal participation in economic, political and social life, free from all forms of discrimination. Rural women, in particular, must be granted direct and active decision-making on food and rural issues.
What food sovereignty means
That’s what food sovereignty is and where the concept comes from. But what does it really mean? What does it mean for our community right here in Kingston and countryside, and what does it mean for the way we eat and the way we think about food?
First of all, if you eat then you have a stake in our community’s food system. We created this newspaper because we – farmers, food processors, small grocers, community members – want you to know that there are serious problems with the industrial food system. Many people can’t afford healthy food. Farmers are not being paid a living wage and so their numbers are shrinking and skills are being lost. The ability of this system to provide our community with safe food into the future is in serious doubt. These are major problems, but they are also problems we can solve with political and community involvement. This newspaper is about solutions, and about action.
Among the actions needed is a general revitalization of our local food infrastructure. We must rebuild the rural economies and facilities (like local processors and distributors) that have been lost in the rush for “cheap” food – food that is only cheap when we ignore its broader social, ecological, and health costs. Rebuilding this infrastructure will make sustainable food more accessible year-round, more varied, and more available for institutional use (like in schools or hospitals).
But it also means protecting our food system from bad government policies or predatory corporate practices. Some in government have shown – through the debacle of the prison farm closure, among other things – that they don’t care about the ability of communities to feed themselves. They don’t understand what makes for a sustainable or healthy community, and they don’t want to understand.
When a community’s food system is under threat, those who eat must stand up for it. This may look like signing a petition against GMO alfalfa. It may look like planting a community garden. It may look like sitting down in front of cattle trucks. It may look like buying a CSA share or pasture-raised pork from a local farm.
Food sovereignty also means changing the way we think about what we eat; it means seeing food not as a collection of products on a grocery store shelf, but as a system. An entire community – of microorganisms, plants, animals and farmers – lives and works every day to produce our food. In the long term, we can only be as healthy as the community that feeds us.
If we – and the farmers who feed us – show reverence for the land and an ability to work with nature to grow food, then we can rely on having a healthy community for a long time. On the other hand, if the food we buy destroys the land rather than healing it – or if we as a community refuse to pay what it costs to grow food that is healthy for both people and the land – then we will not have fertile land in the future.
We aren’t telling you to swear off bananas and oranges. But understand that just as some foods in the grocery store aren’t grown locally, there are many exciting things grown locally that you can’t find in the grocery store. Our growing area has its own unique characteristics and soils (an individuality sometimes called “terroir”). Exploring the diversity of local varieties is both exciting and flavourful. (And local varieties even include wild plants, see page 19.)
Food sovereignty also means food security – a safe, reliable, and abundant food supply for all.
The inability to access and afford basic foods is not just something that happens on television or in far-off places. It is a real and serious issue in our community. Since 2008, food bank usage in Ontario has risen by 28%. In one of three households that access food banks, at least one person skips three or more meals each week because they cannot afford enough food. These numbers are fundamentally shameful, especially given that we live in one of the most affluent societies in the world.
Healthy food needs to be accessible to everyone. Some of the people in this newspaper offer ways of making that happen. We must, as a community, find ways to address the on-going hunger and malnourishment in our community, and we must do it soon.
Perhaps above all, food sovereignty means choice. Not just the choice of which can of pasta sauce to buy, but something more profound; the reclaiming of our decision-making power in the food system. Do we want a food system that offers convenience to those who can afford it, but fails to feed so many, even as it funnels huge profits into the hands of a few seed and agrichemical companies? That offers temporarily “cheap” food by depleting the soil and drawing down aquifers, undermining the ability of the land to grow food at all? Or do we want a food system that feeds nourishing food to everyone, equitably, and long into the future?
With those choices, of course, comes the responsibility to take action. Food sovereignty will not be won by personal efforts alone – it requires community action.
Taking action
The skyrocketing of food and oil prices in recent years have made it increasingly clear that the global food system is not stable or sustainable. Industrial agriculture’s dependence on cheap energy and long-distance shipping is increasingly at odds with a world of climate change, water shortages, international food riots and dwindling oil supplies. If we fail to heed these warnings then the future is indeed grim.
So here’s the final question: are we just spectators in history? Or are we engaged participants in our food system and in the making of our own future?
Some people have already decided. The moment a many growing organizations for makes it clear that our area is full of people who are serious, brave, and dedicated.
These are people who understand that food is the basis of any community. You can’t have real democracy without food sovereignty, and vice versa.
As Greg Williams writes in “Food and Oil,” the national political establishment in Canada has been largely unable or unwilling to respond to fundamental changes like peak oil and climate change – especially when it comes to food. If we want to see real action – if we want to stop climate change and ensure that our communities can feed themselves – we need to take action here, in our own kitchens, shopping carts, workplaces, schools, neighbourhoods, and backyards.
And people are doing just that. Some farmers are saving seed to ensure the continuity of plant varieties suited to our area. Parents and teachers are showing children – and families – the benefits of healthy local food. Community members and entrepreneurs are building the infrastructure we need. Non-profit organizations and individuals are working to overcome hunger and food injustice.
You can be part of all that. You can join us. It’s easy to get started. Eating local food is one of the first steps, and our centerfold directory shows many sources. Yes, there are challenges, but as Karen Holmes writes those challenges can be overcome (and they might not be as big as you think). Many people are getting engaged by growing food in their yards, apartment balconies, and community gardens. They are preserving their harvest in the summer and fall, and enjoying it through the winter. They are helping to get local food served in the places they work or learn or go out for dinner.
The rewards are immediate and real. Local foods are gaining popularity in part because their freshness can offer unparalleled flavour. Such nutrient-dense foods are especially beneficial for children. And no value can be put on the sense of community that develops when neighbours grow food together, or when city people become friends with the farmers who grow their foods. Many other rewards are discussed in these pages.
We can have all that, and a livable future, if we work together.
Source: Print Volume Food down The RoadAric McBay is a small-scale organic farmer, community activist, and author of three books about ecological and social justice issues.
Guest Blog: Karen Holmes on behalf of the Food Down the Road, Ontario.
The smell of freshly-cut herbs simmering in a vegetable broth. The crispness of newly picked Swiss chard. The summer smells and flavours of home-preserved tomatoes or crab-apple jelly as the jar’s seal is broken on a January day. The peace of mind of knowing exactly where your food comes from, in what conditions it has been grown or produced, and that its nutritional value is genuine. The satisfaction of knowing that you are contributing to the health and wholeness of a sustainable local food-system and the life of the planet.
These are all benefits of eating locally, as identified by people who make local sourcing a priority in most of their food choices. The benefits – and other intangibles which we might call soul – are what motivate them, in spite of the challenges involved.
Some challenges to eating locally take the form of assumptions; while based in partial fact, these are not the absolute and limiting truths that they may be mistaken for. We need to examine these assumptions to move definitively in the direction of eating local food.
Before we begin, however, let’s briefly outline what the words ‘local food’ mean in this article. Simply put, local food is any food that is grown within a 100-mile/160-km radius of the eater.
Determination of local-food status is not based on farming-methodology (e.g. industrial, organic, biodynamic), although many who are drawn to the local-food movement for issues of sustainability or health are also attracted to organic and other ecological methods of agriculture.
Food’s “localness” is based on where its ingredients are from, rather than on where it is prepared or sold. So one can buy fresh pasta from a local shop, or cilantro from the Kingston market, but if the wheat and eggs in the pasta, or the cilantro plant, are not from within a 100-mile/160-km radius, then these foods cannot be termed local.
Canada’s Food Guide states that people should eat a variety of foods from the four food groups each day. The evaluation of any local food diet needs to be based on its ability to meet this requirement, in addition to considerations of the nutritional value of the food that is being produced and eaten.
Challenge #1: Cost
Assumption: “Local food costs considerably more than the same food at a grocery-store.”
Many people cited this concern, but did not know how much they would save by buying non-local food. Whether local food costs more (and by how much) needs further research.
Even if the costs for local food are marginally higher, people with low-incomes or on tight budgets truly cannot afford those extra dollars/month and/or rely upon food-support programs such as the Good Food Box or the local food-bank. Good Food Box (fresh food made available monthly at wholesale prices and sponsored by KFL&A Public Health) has taken considerable effort to stock ‘local’ (i.e. Ontario and /or Picton) food in its food-boxes; however, it cannot provide local food during the winter months and has no Kingston food-terminal through which to acquire local food at wholesale prices.
It is also difficult for people on low-income to engage in long-range food-stocking or production (e.g., the higher-volume purchases at peak season that are involved in canning and preserving are prohibitive for those on lower-incomes), and are thus driven toward feeding themselves on a month-per-month, week-per-week basis.
Getting to local food outlets (because of the cost of transportation and the limited locations of these outlets) is also a big challenge for those on low incomes and for those who live in more isolated areas.
Cost:
Local CSA shares (with seasonal vegetables only) are, on average, $22/week: this size of share is designed to feed two adults.
If you are like most North American consumers, you will scan the chart (at right) to determine where you can get your groceries most cheaply. But are the savings really worth it within a broader system of values or in terms of real economy? Any money saved does make a big difference to low-income families, not to mention that persons living on social assistance (with $600 or less/month in income) cannot afford to eat enough at all, whether locally or otherwise. For families not within these income-brackets, however, let’s put the dollar-saving reflex aside and examine this issue of cost a bit further.
The Cost-Illusion :
Many local foods are not much more expensive than their non-local counterparts, even in deep winter. In some cases, local food is actually cheaper than non-local (e.g. $2.50 bought four large local leeks from Picton; three smaller leeks from Mexico were $3.99 at the grocery store). In other cases, it was at par (e.g. canning tomatoes from two local sources were $1.25/lb and $1.49/lb -- the same price as their grocery store counterparts).
There are also many hidden costs to non-local foods that we and our children will pay for in the generations to come. The costs of non-local and industrial-scale food-production (so-called cheap food) have been outlined by many writers and commentators before, but they bear repeating: environmental degradation, resource-depletion, dependence upon fossil fuels, and the weakening of safeguards on public health and safety.
A Shift in Values:
One of the greatest obstacles to local food purchase is the common cultural practice amongst middle- to upper-income people of paying the least amount for food bought at a grocery-store, in order that the money might be spent somewhere else. In these income-brackets, a shifting of priorities would help many make the move to local food by helping the local food system grow and build infrastructure.
We must make a mental shift and realize that to compare a tomato produced locally with sustainable practices to one shipped in from a unsustainable farm-operation is actually a false comparison. In many ways, these two tomatoes are not the same product in flavour, nutrition, or planetary impact.
Farmers are not charging prices that meet their real production costs, because typical prices are artificially depressed. Eaters need to understand this.
Making Local Food Accessible:
Local food providers who are willing to make low-budget food boxes (similar to the Good Food Box) available would aid many low-income families in increasing their consumption of local food.
Institutional buying (say, for school cafeterias) would help make local food more available and accessible to a large number of people.
The preserving of produce (as well as the preparation of food) in cost-saving cooperative kitchens or food-preparation groups needs to become more commonplace. Kingston Community Health Centre is piloting many such programs this spring (April 2011); many more are needed.
Delivery and multiple food drop-off points are already used by some programs and CSAs to make local food more convenient, especially for those with limited transportation.
The development of gleaning-programs is also important: opportunities for social service agencies and other members of the public to pick or collect local produce that would otherwise go to waste.
Challenge # 2: Availability
Assumption: “Local food is not available in sufficient variety and quantity especially during the off-season months of November – April.”
Of the 18 people I interviewed, almost all stated that the most challenging aspect of trying to eat locally occurred in the winter months: specifically, getting a sufficient variety of fresh local vegetables and fruit and locally-produced staples.
Some produce is not available from local sources (e.g. tropical fruit) or is only available at certain times of year (e.g. local broccoli, in the summer). This reduces the variety of foods that one can choose from (though there are also some foods that can only be found locally.)
Acquiring local flours, oils, dairy products and other staples were listed as challenges. Local meats are becoming more available and are widely used year-round. Fish is rarely available from local sources.
Some reported challenges in using more local foods with children who have grown up eating specific foods. Producing school lunches for children is particularly challenging.
Addressing Availability:
We are not asking anyone to stop eating imported foods. Even eating some local food will offer local variety and support local farmers, meaning there will be more variety in the future.
There are many innovative and wonderfully flavourful recipes for local produce that allow us to present even a few items in a broad variety of ways. Recipe exchanges, potlucks and food sharing groups are ways to find new and creative ways to prepare food. An accessible and central online link to these recipes and food-gatherings in the Kingston area and countryside would help focus these efforts.
By preserving local food, we can enjoy the variety of summer produce into the winter and early-spring months. Canning, freezing, and lacto-fermentation (i.e. for sauerkraut, pickles and preserves) can be easy skills to learn.
More local producers of winter (cold-frame & greenhouse) vegetables, of staples (most notably flours, oils, spices) and of fruits are needed. Other ‘gaps’ such as these within the local-food system also need addressing, including local creameries and sellers of meat, legumes and fish.
More community gardens and seed-exchanges would help increase the variety and volume of food available for eating and processing.
More year-round producers’ farmers’ markets would be an asset: would help build continuity and customer-loyalty, as well as making the food available.
Challenge # 3: Convenience
Assumption: “Local food is not as convenient to purchase or prepare as super-market [or restaurant] food.”
On average, the local eaters whom I interviewed for this article spent 1.5 hours/day in food preparation.
Although there are retailers who sell prepared local food, most local food still requires preparation on the part of the eater (i.e., cooking, preserving or processing) and this preparation demands time and skills that many people do not possess.
Local foods are not always available for purchase in one convenient location CSAs and cooperatives are working to address this concern, and there are also local-food delivery-services such as Desert Lake Gardens and Wendy’s Mobile Market, but it is still the case that most local eaters had to make several ‘stops’ to acquire the various items on their weekly shopping lists.
Addressing Convenience:
Increasing the number of CSA’s and food delivery services.
Food-preparation groups meeting regularly to produce food preserved through canning methods or freezing, saving people time and teaching essential food preparation and preservation skills (Kingston Community Health Centre is piloting such a program this spring).
Increasing the number of pre-prepared local-food providers, thereby helping singles, seniors, and anyone who is cooking for one or two.
Due to health-regulations, most farmers cannot process their products into food on their farm premises. A central and large commercial kitchen would allow value-added products to be produced either by farmers themselves or by others.
Top Twenty Needs for Meeting the Challenges of Eating Locally
In addition to the need for sound policy-decisions at all levels of government that will benefit a local and sustainable food-system, implementing the following ideas will help us all meet the challenges of eating locally:
1) Canning, preserving and storage know-how.
2) Meal-planning and food-preparation know-how.
3) Greenhouse production for produce out of season.
4) Gatherings of local food enthusiasts.
5) More sources for local staple-foods.
6) Cooperative food preparation and sharing organizations.
7) Low-income food-programs that utilize local food: buying groups, cooperatives, food boxes.
8) Local fish, eggs and dairy.
9) More sources of prepared local food.
10) Delivery of local food boxes to families with transportation needs.
11) More delivery-sites and more conveniently-located sites.
12) More community gardens, storage facilities and seed exchanges.
13) Farmer action-research groups and services to price local food accurately and fairly.
14) 'Story' marketing of local foods that stresses the accountability (nutrition and safety) of the local food-system and its suppliers.
15) Shifting values: me, my family, my community, the planet deserve something better.
16) A local food terminal.
17) Gleaning-programs.
18) Year-round producers' farmers' markets.
19) A central and large commercial kitchen for processing produce and developing value-added products according to regulations.
20) A central site (virtual and/or real) for feedback about the local food-system as well as where to get local food and recipe exchanges.
Conclusion:
The challenges of eating locally are real, and cannot be met in isolation; they will require the ingenuity, good-will and hard work of the entire local food-producing and eater communities. Many are already being addressed, but more and more people will need to take up the work if we are to make the local food-system an integral part of our everyday living – as ordinary as breathing or eating itself.
Those I interviewed said that overcoming these challenges could also be a source of deep joy, satisfaction and genuine community in their lives. Again and again, people said eating locally was all about relationships – among family-members, community-members, farmers, producers, eaters, and citizens; relationships with their own selves and with the planet. Our industrial food-system, on the other hand, relies on anonymous relationships that are both dependent and exploitative. It is time to take our dignity back; through sustainability and commitment, creatively and cooperatively meeting the challenges of eating locally together.
Karen Holmes is a spiritual director, retreat facilitator and educator farming and (aiming to) eat local near Verona.
Source: Print Volume 3 Food Down the Road
Opportunities to invest in domestic sustainable food and agriculture have grown dramatically in the last decade. There now exists a vibrant ecosystem of investors, philanthropists, policy makers, food producers & processors, and advocacy groups, all in tireless pursuit of a solution. At one time, our land abounded with flourishing agrarian communities. These were not without failure and strife, but the underlying structures and intentions were pure. Human intelligence evolved these concepts of cultivation, nourishment and growth into the financial world, developing communities and tools to further our prosperity.
What is Impact Investing?
By engaging the private sector in an investment area that traditionally has been limited to philanthropy, impact investing aims to provide environmental, social and governance solutions at scale. It has been designed to leverage significant capital and expertise against the world’s most pressing challenges. Impact investing, also referred to as social investing, sustainable investing, mission investing, and impact finance, has been defined as “any investment activity that purposefully generates measurable public benefit”. The goal of impact investments is to significantly contribute to poverty alleviation, social growth, economic development and environmental preservation.
What is a Sustainable Food System?
Sustainable Food Systems reflect a structure and process that create a close link between the producers and the consumers of food, such that the health of people, place, planet & profit are optimally restored and supported. Sustainable food systems include all the major points along the food supply chain (production, processing, distribution, and consumption) and have the potential to solve many of the worlds’ pressing social, health, and environmental challenges.
A broken food system in the US and around the world has significantly contributed to five (5) important “tragedies”: environmental pollution, water pollution, land and soil degradation, public health damage, and community collapse. The pollution of the environment and the water is a serious matter. According to a recent study from Scientific American, agribusiness is responsible for one third of human-induced global greenhouse gas emissions. Especially alarming are the levels of nitrogen and methane emissions. Current practices for food production, processing and distribution use technology powered by gasoline, diesel and natural gas, which results in air and water pollution, depletion of soil fertility, and a reduction of species diversity. As indicated by the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service, on average, produce in the U.S. travels 1,300 – 2,000 miles between farm and consumer.
Similarly, human activities have degraded or destroyed the quality and productivity of soil. The amount of arable, productive land is decreasing at alarming rates. According to the World Resources Institute, the main causes of soil degradation in the US are agricultural activities, overgrazing and deforestation. The majority of today’s farm owners don’t have access to the capital needed to maintain their permanent cropland. As a result, fertile land is being sold to developers and large agribusinesses that use environmentally degrading practices.
Kudos to the Springcreek Foundation
This publication is created by The Springceek Foundation and the authors wish to thank everyone who helped inform and inspire this publication. This report would not have been possible without their invaluable input and support.
- Ricardo Bayon, Partner, EKO Asset Management Partners
- Susan Clark, Executive Director, Columbia Foundation
- Michael Dimock, President, Roots of Change
- Oran B. Hesterman, President & CEO, Fair Food Network
- Chris Larson, Director of Real Assets and Sustainable Agriculture, New Island Capital
- Laetitia Mailhes, Journalist, The Green Plate Blog
- Greg Ostroff, Private Investor
- Woody Tasch, Chairman and Founder, Slow Money
Finally, this report was beautifully designed and produced by Grayson Bass.
Written by Guest Author: James Kim
Eating local benefits the local economy and the environment by making soil richer and minimizing energy consumption. In addition, integrating local items into your meal planning could bring fresher food to your table. So how can you start eating local? And what exactly does “local” even mean? Read on to get answers to all your questions about local eating.
Q: What’s the difference between organic and local food?
A: While there is a clear cut definition for “organic,” the term “local” is a bit more nebulous. The USDA defines organic food as food that has been produced without using harmful pesticides, fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge, bioengineering or ionizing radiation.
Unlike organic food, local food has no certification with precise specifications. “Locavores,” or those who eat local, strive to purchase food that is in their general vicinity to discourage the mass transportation of food.
Q: What if local food does not have an organic seal?
A: The majority of local food lacks an organic seal, however, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the food does not meet the USDA standards of organic. Some local farmers cannot afford to acquire the time-consuming and costly organic certification. Assure that your food is unofficially organic by inquiring with your famers about their farming practices, pesticides and fertilizers used. Do your research and visit the farms. This way, you can eat organic and local simultaneously.
Q: Isn’t eating local difficult?
A: It would be a lie to say that eating locally doesn’t take some time, money, and thought. However there are several ways to eat locally on a temporal and financial budget. Try your normal shopping methods, but show in season. There are many sites, such as Smart Living, that lay out lists of foods that are in season in your area. You can also buy from a local food producer or artisan, like a butcher or baker. The cheapest way to go local is to do it from home. Plant some herbs, berries, and lettuce in your backyard.
While eating local is a challenge it is one that is well worth your time. Get closer to your food and eat fresher by going local!
James Kim is a writer for foodonthetable.com. Food on the Table is a company that provides online budget meal planning services. Their goal is to help families eat better and save money.
We gorge on chemicals, antibiotics, and pharmaceuticals for our lawns, feed our livestock and swallow to keep us happy and functioning. Can composting really detoxify chemicals, or are we spreading heavy metals, pesticides and drug residues in our gardens? We purchase compost, mulch, and even dirt. Are we bringing a toxic Pharmacia directly into our own homes?
The answers to these questions are uncertain. What we do know: If gardeners are putting manure-based products containing trace antibiotics and pharmaceuticals, they are drawing trace amounts of these pharmaceuticals into their "organic" vegetables which would directly affect their immune systems.
The Overuse of Antibiotics in Agriculture
According to Food Safety News, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration confirmed numbers this week that indicate animal agriculture consumes 80 percent of all antibiotics used in the United States, more than previously estimated. Decades of research on antibiotic over-use in animals shows that the drugs' use encourages the development of resistant organisms on the farm that then move off the farm -- and most recently, that low-dose use, what the industry calls 'sub-therapeutic' use, may actually stimulate the emergence of mutations even more than full-strength use.
Even seasoned gardeners do not know that cow and horse manures, even labeled organic, may contain traces of veterinary medicines. The label on organic manures only means that it has been composted for a period of days at a certain temperature range, not that the product is absent of antibiotic, growth hormone, steroids, or other medicines. According to Peter Montgomery o f Montgomery Gardens in Warren, “This is particularly true when one takes a closer look at Sweet Peet, which comes from horse stables. Sweet Peet is a licensed standardized process. Martha Stewart loves it, but the problem is it comes from local stables (Westchester, Fairfield, Litchfield, for instance) where ill horses receive the best vet care available. And you know what that means. Sick = Rx for whatever cures the ill.”
Municipal Composting of Sewage Biosolids
The Organic Consumers Association took a stand outside the mayor’s office in San Francisco to protest the city’s recent free composting program. It might sound like an odd thing to protest, especially with all the amazing benefits of composting. The national group chose San Francisco to demonstrate against since it is one of the most “green” cities in the U.S. and they felt that it would reach the best audience.
This group claims that the compost that was handed out “usually includes a number of heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, pharmaceuticals, steroids, flame-retardants, bacteria (including antibiotic-resistant bacteria), fungi, parasites and viruses.” They cite an EPA survey that found heavy metals, steroids, anions, and pharmaceuticals in the biosolids from around the country.
Many local governments have adopted the practice of turning biosolids into fertilizer to be sold or handed out for free. A biosolid is made from treated and processed sewage. The EPA claims that these biosolids contain “nutrient-rich organic materials”.
Be careful to realize that when they say organic here, they do not mean certified organic, but organic as in organic chemistry.
Don’t Forget Your Tap Water
Just when we were coming back around to the idea of drinking good old fashioned tap water, the Associated Press announced that it has found traces of dozens of pharmaceuticals in the drinking water of an estimated 41 million Americans. This news will come as no surprise to the Environmental Protection Agency, which has been monitoring the presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products, or PPCPs, in water for years, and exploring their potential ecological harm. The EPA is certainly not hiding from the issue. According to Fox News, more than 271 million pounds of pharmaceuticals are released into US waterways every year.
By turning on the hose, are we piping pharmaceuticals onto our gardens too?
I can hardly imagine a world without plastic. It has been one of our most important technological advances and we use plastic for EVERYTHING.
Our lifestyle today as a technologically advanced society would not be possible without plastics.
Yet the actual chemical makeup of almost all plastics we use today dates as far back as the 1920s, without focus or understanding of how the chemicals might interact with the human endocrine system.
Recent peer-reviewed research indicates that almost all plastics in the marketplace today leach endocrine disruptors, chemicals that display estrogenic activity (EA) and which, once taken into the human body, have been linked to a wide range of serious health problems.
We’ve all heard about the concerns from BPA, Bisphenol A, which is a dangerous concern found in plastic and metal cans which carries potential side effects “on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children.”
Ways to Reduce your Exposure to BPA
Though completely eliminating exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) may not be possible, there are steps you can take to reduce your family's exposure to this chemical by avoiding common sources and limiting exposure for the highest risk groups.
- Avoid polycarbonate plastic bottles and containers. These are usually hard, clear, and marked with number 7 or the letters "PC." Use unlined glass, stainless steel, or ceramic containers, instead. If using plastic, look for soft, cloudy plastic and the numbers 1, 2, and 4, which do not contain BPA.
- Don't mix heat and plastic. BPA may be released at high temperatures, so do not microwave or put hot foods or liquids in BPA containers.
- Discard scratched plastic bottles and containers. BPA can leak from the scratches.
- Avoid (or eat fewer) canned foods and drinks. BPA is used in the linings of canned foods, and highly acidic foods like tomatoes may leach more BPA. Choose foods that are fresh, frozen, or packaged in glass or cardboard containers, instead. Some home canning lids also contain BPA, but you should be able to avoid contamination if there's enough head space between the contents and the lid.
According to the Environmental Working Group, a recent study linking BPA exposures in adults to heart disease and diabetes raises concerns about the safety of current exposures. Adult exposure comes primarily from canned foods and polycarbonate food containers, but BPA-containing medical devices could also be a source. Pregnant women and older children should avoid BPA. Eat a varied diet, avoid canned foods, and don't use polycarbonate plastics for warm food or drinks.
BPA-Free Plastics are Still Unhealthy
Many chemicals found in plastics have Estrogenic Activity (EA) which both sound scary and ARE scary! A recent study conducted in Environmental Health Perspectives and spoken about on NPR said that “Almost all commercially available plastic products we sampled, independent of the type of resin, product, or retail source, leached chemicals having reliably-detectable Estrogenic Activity, including those advertised as BPA-free.
In some cases, BPA-free products released chemicals having more EA than BPA-containing products.” The testing showed that more than 70 percent of the products released chemicals that acted like estrogen. And that was BEFORE these plastics were exposed to heat and other real-world conditions: simulated sunlight, dishwashing and microwaving.
But what about all those products marketed as BPA-free? That's a claim being made for everything from dog bowls to bento boxes these days.
The team concentrated on BPA-free baby bottles and water bottles, and all of them released chemicals having estrogenic activity." Sometimes the BPA-free products had even more activity than products known to contain BPA.
Sustainable Plastics: Are we getting closer? There’s hope!
According to a recent NPR story, Plastic’s New Frontier: No Scary Chemicals, Mike Usey, the CEO of PlastiPure is a businessman and scientist in Austin,Texas, is trying to change the way consumers think about plastic.
PlastiPure is the first and only company developing plastic materials, processes, and products that are safer both for humans and the environment. PlastiPure-Safe™ certified EA-Free products and materials directly address the molecular mechanism causing EA. At PlastiPure, they’re creating plastics and other packaging materials go far beyond BPA-free to be certified EA-Free, so they’re safer for you. And recyclable, so they’re safer for the Earth.
PlastiPure technology provides the most comprehensive solution to address the serious health concerns about endocrine disruptors. PlastiPure products – specially formulated to be EA-Free – go far beyond BPA- and phthalate-free, and contain no chemicals that display estrogenic activity (EA).
Next steps to Plastic Sustainability?
The next steps to actually CREATING healthier plastics, is to make sure the entire plastics MANUFACTURING process is environmentally sound -- which, it currently is not.
Thanks PlastiPure for getting the process started!
At the Edibles Advocate Alliance, we are seeking a new clean & renewable energy partners to provide environmentally-friendly energy options, energy audits, clean energy generating systems, and renewable energy education, support, and consulting to and with our constituency.
We are based in Connecticut and our organization does work nation-wide. Partnerships that can operate throughout CT will be highly considered. Connecticut has the second highest electric rates in the nation and our small business and agricultural industries need reliable renewable energy options that operate with responsibility and integrity.
Our current clean energy partner is a kind and respectable company whom we like and respect very much but who is not yet able to operate as strongly as we would like, and are yet to provide benefits to our constituency.
Please contact us if you are or know of viable Renewable Energy Partners that might be interested in educating us about your services and potentially exploring partnership ideas. We look forward to learning about you!
Who WE Are
Edibles Advocate Alliance offers small business consulting & support for grass-roots and socially innovative organizations.
Emily Brooks and the EA Alliance nurtures social entrepreneurs & social innovators to build local, living economies and to:
Our Proactive Customer Base
Our Customers include organizations and individuals who are highly engaged in economic development, agricultural development, and environmental protection.
Economic Development:
- Promoting economic development
- Creating new jobs and small businesses
- Developing thriving, local business models
- Keeping local money in the local economy
- Increasing access to fresh, healthy, affordable food
- Reducing food waste and combating food insecurity
- Creating sustainable community food systems
- Laying the foundation of a local food distribution system
- Expanding consumer choice of where to shop and what to buy locally produced items
- Developing an understanding of where and how food is produced and sold
- Increasing understanding of the benefits and ultimately demand for locally produced food
- Reducing carbon footprints of consumers and businesses
- Advocating for more renewable energy options and opportunities
Agricultural Development:
- Increasing access to fresh, healthy, affordable food
- Reducing food waste and combating food insecurity
- Creating sustainable community food systems
- Laying the foundation of a local food distribution system
- Expanding consumer choice of where to shop and what to buy locally produced items
- Developing an understanding of where and how food is produced and sold
- Increasing understanding of the benefits and ultimately demand for locally produced food
- Reducing carbon footprints of consumers and businesses
- Advocating for more renewable energy options and opportunities
Environmental Protection:
- Reducing carbon footprints of consumers and businesses
- Advocating for more renewable energy options and opportunities
I recently had the opportunity to tour the Nelson Family Dairy Farm in Wisconsin Dells, WI -- farmed for over 40 years by the entire Nelson Family including Don and Anita, their son Nels and his wife Sarah Lloyd, and their son Peter and his wife Toril.
As a medium-sized dairy producer the Nelsons have many hurdles to conquer in this new age of agribusiness. We currently have two models of distribution: massive corporate farms with commodity distribution, or farmers markets for the small or artisanal producers.
How does the Nelson Family Farm find their business niche when they produce too much to sell through a farmers market, but produce too little to compete with 8,000-cow dairy CAFOs?
Sarah Lloyd proposes creativity and cooperation as we quickly need to erect new distribution channels for the medium-sized producers.
The Corprification of Wisconsin’s Dairy Industry
In 2009, Wisconsin In 2009, Wisconsin dairy farms produced just over 25 billion pounds of milk. The average Wisconsin cow produced just over 20,000 pounds of milk a year in 2009. To maintain 25 billion pounds of annual production, Wisconsin needs 1,250,000 cows.
Here is an example of the different “ways” farmers can produce that 25 billion pounds of milk in Wisconsin:
| NUMBER OF FARMS |
AVERAGE HERD SIZE |
| 12,500 |
100 cows |
| 2,500 |
500 cows |
| 1,250 |
1,000 cows |
| 250 |
5,000 cows |
There are heavy implications for communities, the economy, people, and the land depending on what scenario Wisconsin chooses to set its sights on. While having just 250 large dairy CAFOs might appear to be most efficient, that means that 12,250 small dairy farms – like the Nelson’s – will go out of business.
The Pros and Cons of the California CAFO Dairy Model
According to the 2007 USDA Census of Agriculture, Wisconsin has 14,158 dairy farms while California only has 1,923 – only 8% of which are non-CAFO medium-producer dairy farmers. The Goat Blog says “Mooooove over, Wisconsin. You're quickly losing your dairy state cred to the West.”
A recent article, California Dairy Industry Woes are pinned on Ethanol Subsidies. With industrial farms SO big, farmers are not able to produce everything that they need on their farms. As feed prices are through the roof again, the price producers are getting for milk is down, and California dairy producers are once again struggling. The cost of feed has exploded partly because of ethanol. The price of corn has gone up as it's been used for fuel instead of feed.
And, is bigger really BETTER? According to the 48-page report called Factory Farm Nation, intensive farming methods can come with a host of environmental and public health costs that are borne by consumers and communities -- none of the costs of which are paid by the agribusiness industry.
And scroll around the Factory Farm Map to find out about how factory farms affect all of us from farm families, consumers, food safety, and our health.
So, what should we do?
How do we protect medium-sized farmers from disintegrating, their farms and land subjugated into the large agribusiness CAFO model of factory food?